A reasonably intelligent person would understand that she was talking about the concept implemented by OBL and not praising the man or his organization. Therefore, many of her constituents understood and agreed with the point of her commentary.
While some of the bruhaha is over her praise of OBL, my main point of why she was wrong was because of her not acknowledgeing the US aid we give to the poor.
Please.........your point was that Sen. Murray's loyalty to the US is somehow in question because she praised one aspect of OBL's MO.
Because US and British intelligence operatives say so. And while the Bush administration intimates that Saddam has connections with al Qaeda, the best they have been able to do is simply intimate; real proof is never forthcoming. Intimating, prejudging, hinting etc seem to be the favorite tactics of the GOP to sway public opinion.
I wouldn't be too sure if I were you. In fact Lieberman was on Good Morning America this morning from a army base (in Afghanistan I believe). He was asked about Iraq, and he said that he personally was in confidential meetings and saw confidential information concerning Saddams WMD; and that he agrees with GW that Saddam has them. Even Murray (she is on the foreign affairs committee) agrees that Saddam has WMD. The dispute is over how dangerous is he and how to deal with him.
We were talking about connections to al Qaeda, not WMD.
However, she did not think military action was necessary at this time and voted against the Iraq resolution. Once again, like many of her constituents, she believes we should be putting our efforts into capturing al Qaeda.
Perhaps she is saying two different things. However her Iraq res. vote is only 2 months old. The way I read it from that paragraph I posted,( Murray acknowledged that Saddam Hussein is an evil menace and agreed that disarming Iraq’s weapons capability is America’s most important objective – and one that could require military action to achieve ) she claims that dismanteling Saddams WMD is the most important obective; not capturing OBL. Read it again if you disagree.
I swear........conservatives must think they are visionaries. No one, including Sen. Murray, disputes the fact that Saddam is an evil pain in the butt. The issue is whether we can accomplish the dismantling of his WMD with or without having to go to war.
Now, you're suggesting she "yelled fire in a theater"; I think you've had a little to much eggnog this Xmas.
And good eggnog it was. However that "fire in the theater" remark simply means that the right to free speech doesn't give you the right to say anything anytime, anywhere,without facing the consequences. And criticising people for what they say doesn't necessarily mean you are against speech, just some of the ideas being conveyed.
The litmus test for determing whether free speech is applicable or not has to do with the issue of endangerment; hence, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is not considered a reasonable exercise of freedom of speech. However, praising OBL's charity work does not fall into that category; rather it threatens the conservatives misguided understanding of what a patriot is. And since you all think you are terribly brilliant, your brains are tightly closed to any alternative way of thinking.
OBL/al Qaeda unfortunately present themselves as real opponents to our way of life and threaten are well being. Given their capabilities, its always possible we can learn something from them. That is what Sen. Murray was trying to point out. OBL/al Qaeda know how to engender the support of the third world common man in way we have yet to learn.
There are always people in this country all too ready to call others unAmerican because those people do not agree with the prevailing view.......and much too often the prevailing view turns out to be a bad one.
I think she twisted the facts to suit her purposes. I didn't say she was unpatriotic.
She didn't twist anything; you are twisting her words in an effort to make her look bad.
That said, just how patriotic is someone who twists the facts so she can be re-elected or further her agenda. To go to war or not to war should be decided on facts, not a bunch of lies.
Damn, give me a break..........this wasn't a re-election speech. These kids won't be able to vote for another 5 years!!
ted
Enter symbols or keywords for search:
QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup
Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top
Terms of Use
Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor. |
